>I don't get it. If there was no settlement boom, then the boom of new -eÅti names would have spread in existing settlements. So old towns were renamed?
> It is not odd, it's the reality.
> >So you're saying there was a settlement boom in Transylvania in the
> >16th-17th centuries?
> No boom, but the spreading of such suffixes as a... fad.
> And IOK.
> didn't limit this to Transylvania: I merely pointed out that in
> Transylvania there are *also* such place names, but, compared
> with other regions, this one doesn't have person names ending in
> -escu. Where there are such persons, their roots are outside.
>What's the origin of Slavic toponym suffix -iÅ¡Äe, BTW?
> >I know, cunosc, cunoÅti, cuno[a]Åte, like finisco, finisci, finisce
> So you see that there is a phonologic reason behind it (sc > $t
> and in rarissima cases sc > $k). An ancient SE european substrate
> -(e)st to have been preserved in Romanian is hardly imaginable
> and, if it is, then it is hardly plausible that it was converted
> to -e$ti. A -(a,e,i,o,u)st place name suffix would be exotic in
> Romanian. (I don't reject your hypothesis, I only point out I
> can't see how it could have been preserved, and I've never heard
> it in works by people specialized in Romanian linguistics. But
> ya never know, perhaps this would be a new insight. :))
> >But it is still intriguing that Kuhn's NWBlock/Venetic -st- suffixIt wouldn't really have to as such, if old naming habits for anthroponyms and toponyms survived (ie. the suffixes).
> >might have been the plural of the adjective -sk- suffix.
> If your NWB/V. assumption were justified, a next step would be
> to show how this -st- might have been borrowed into Romanian
> and Albanian.
> >I am reconstructing backwards from the dual dialect divisionDutch is officially a Low German dialect (but don't tell the Dutch or Flemings). And, BTW, historically there has been a struggle in the Dutch-speaking area on whether to pull the language in the direction of German or in a more 'English', creole-like style. There is much of that in the archives.
> >in Germany. That is the explicandum. Why does the Northern
> >and Southern half of Germany speak dialects so different that
> >they might have been separate states
> Well, they aren't thaaat different. Only that during the
> MHG and NHG time periods the gap grew bigger due to sothern
> innovations. If we look at the older southern German, esp.
> at the OHG level, the differences are less. The real gap is
> when you compare all German dialects with Danish, Swedish,
> Norse, Icelandic and with North-Frisian. For these kind of
> "deutsche Sprachen" one needs either to learn them or hire a
> translator. :) (Let alone English!) I understand much of a
> text written in some of Belgium's and Netherland's vernacular
> than of a text in Danish or Swedish.
> >and yet history says they never were, and why is the SouthernI know. High German became important because all the important institutions were in the High German area. That's circular.
> >dialect the upper dialect in the North yet there was no historical
> >nor prehistorical conquest from the South?
> OMG! It is this that prompted you think of Bastarnians? But
> the explanation is far more recent! It had to do with the
> Frankish empire and with the fact that southern Church and
> administrative centers in the middle and South (incl. Switzerland)
> played (for centuries) a far greater role than in old Saxony!
> To a certain extent, a major role played the missionary monks
> and bishops (most of them Irish) who coordinated the Christiani-
> zation of Germans and who chiefly lived in the southern provinces
> (under the Merowingian and Carolingian auspices). Fulda, Passau,
> Salzburg, St. Galen & al. played a greater role in those times
> until after AD 1000 than the North Sea and the Baltic Sea regions.
> Towards the middle of the 2nd millennium, a tremendous roleSounds German alright ;-)
> was played by the influence of the language Martin Luther's
> translated Bible.
> (Be rather puzzled by the big difference between OHG and MHG:
> compare *southern* OHG texts with those of Walter von der
> Vogelweide and the Nibelungenlied! Atta big difference! Compared
> with OHG, MHG German is almost today's 8High) German.)
> I'm citing from the Atlas der deutschen Sprache:
> <<Geschriebenes und gesprochenes Althochdeutsch
> In ahd. Zeit war die Kirche die TrÃ¤gerin der Schriftkultur, v.a.
> in den Domschulen und den KlÃ¶stern. Einzige geschriebene Sprache
> war bis ins 8. Jh. hinein das Latein. Und das lat. Alphabet, das
> zur VerfÃ¼gung stand, war nur beschrÃ¤nkt geeignet, die fremden
> germ. Lautungen wiederzugeben. So ist uns vom frÃ¤nk. Merowinger-
> kÃ¶nig Chilperich I (+584) Ã¼berliefert, dass er das Alphabet um
> vier Zeichen (fÃ¼r e:, o:, w, th) erweitert habe, um es zur Auf-
> zeichnung frÃ¤nk. WÃ¶rter geeigneter zu machen. Und Otfried
> kritisiert um 865 die frÃ¤nk. Sprache im Vergleich zum Latein als
> ''inculta'' und ''indisciplinabilis''. Sie biete orthograph.
> Schwierigkeiten, die nur durch Zeichen, die das Latein nicht
> habe (damit meinte er k, z und Nebensilbenvokal y) behoben werden
> Wir sehen daraus die grundsÃ¤tzlichen Schwierigkeiten, die sich
> den ahd. Gelehrten fÃ¼r das "bis dahin nahezu unerhÃ¶rte" Unternehmen
> (so Notker Labeo von St. Gallen noch um 1000), deutsch zu
> schreiben, boten. Ihr BemÃ¼hen um genaue phonet. Wiedergabe der
> gesprochenen Sprache (verschiedene Behandlung des Anlauts je nach
> vorhergehendem Laut bei Notker, differenziertes Orthogr'system
> im _Isidor_) gelingt nur den hervorragendsten unter ihnen; manche
> scheitern, wie Wisolf, der Aufzeichner des _Georglieds_, der am
> Ende seines mehr schlechten als rechten Produkts ein "ich kann
> nicht mehr" hinmalt, und zwar auf Latein, das ihm in der Schrift
> nicht so viel Schwierigkeiten macht.
> Die _Schreibmundart eines Ãberlieferungsortes reprÃ¤sentiert oft
> nicht die Mundart seiner Umgebung: so schreibt das Kloster Fulda
> im 9. Jh. ostfrÃ¤nk. und nimmt dann allmÃ¤hlich das RheinfrÃ¤nk. seiner
> Umgebung an. Oder die Reichenau schreibt nach der GrÃ¼ndung 724
> zunÃ¤chst frÃ¤nk., ab 780 alemannisch und im 9 Jh. teilweise wieder
> ostfrÃ¤nkisch. In diesen VerÃ¤nderungen spiegelt sich die Zusammen-
> setzung des jeweiligen Konvents und der Einfluss bedeutender Lehrer
> (zB Walahfried Strabo als Franke auf der Reichenau).
> HÃ¤ufig stellen ahd. Texte auch Mischungen verschiedener Mundarten
> dar. Sie beruhen in der Regel auf Abschriften, bei denen versucht
> wurde, einen Dialekt in einen anderen zu Ã¼bertragen, was bei den
> verschiedenen Werken nur mit unterschiedlichem Grad der Voll-
> kommenheit gelang.
> So zB ist das Hildebrandlied nur in einer asÃ¤chs. Abschrift eines
> bair. oder langobard. Originals erhalten, was man aus hyperkorrekten
> und nicht umgesetzten Formen erschlieÃen kann.
> Die ahd. Dialekte sind uns nur als Schreibsprachen greifbar: die
> aus vielen Gegenden zusammengekommenen MÃ¶nche bewirkten einen
> Ausgleich in den Schreibsprachen, der grobmundartliche Formen
> eliminierte; so erscheinen die typischen Kennzeichen des Bair. Ã¶s
> und enk fÃ¼r die Formen des Personalpronomens 'ihr' und 'euch'
> (Nom. und Akk.) erst im 13. Jh. in der schriftliche Ãberlieferung.
> Anhand der Personennamenschreibung in selten erhaltenen Notizen
> (Vorakten), die der Reinschrift einer Urkunde vorausgingen, stellte
> Stefan Sonderegger fest, dass in den Konzepten die Entwicklung
> der Sprache (zB PrimÃ¤rlaut) weiter fortgeschritten ist als in den
> Urkunden selbst>> [!!!] <<Die stÃ¤rker phonetische Schreibweise der
> Vorakte wurde zugunsten einer konservativen Einheitsschreibung auf-
> gegeben. So sind lokale Schreibtraditionen sehr oft entscheidend
> fÃ¼r das Aussehen des Schriftdialekts eines Schreiborts, wobei sehr
> groÃe Unterschiede zwischen geschriebener und gesprochener
> Sprachform bestehen kÃ¶nnen.
> Das Ahd. ist, so wie es uns entgegentritt, die Sprache der Kirche
> und der KlÃ¶ster, und so sind wir vor allem Ã¼ber den Wortschatz der
> Kirche gut unterrichtet. Von der Sprache des stabreimenden alt-
> germ. Heldenliedes wissen wir nur wenig.
> Die Aufzeichnung von "gesungenen, vorgetragenen, heimischen, sehr
> wichtigen und altehrwÃ¼rdigen Liedern, die das Leben und die
> Kriege der frÃ¼heren KÃ¶nige vergegenwÃ¤rtigten", die Karl d. GroÃe
> anregte, ist verloren, und von der gesprochenen Alltagssprache ist
> in den poet. Werken und in der lat. Ã¼berformten
> Ãbersetzungsliteratur kaum etwas zu spÃ¼ren. Einzig zwei karge
> GesprÃ¤chsbÃ¼chlein (in Paris und Kassel) lassen die Alltagssprache
> des Volkes anklingen:
> _wer pist du? wanna quimis? fona weliheru lantskeffi sindos?_
> "Wer bist du, woher kommst du? Aus welcher Gegend reist du an?"
> Oder: "Sclah en sin hals! (H)undes ars in dine naso! - >>
> >One explanation would be a conquest from the east and we know fromThat Ariovistus came from the east? Here:
> >history and archeology that that was what Ariovistus did.
> Well, feel free to illustrate-demonstrate this.
> Until then, I'll??? What??
> tend to accept the mainstream finds, namely that, at such an
> early stage of the language transformations it did not matter
> whether Elbe Germanic groups or Rhine-Weser-North Sea groups
> had the "upper hand" 500-600 years prior to the colonization
> of the South.
> >1. *xr- isn't *xl-.Not in Germanic, AFAIK.
> Isn't but, can't they be related in a way or another? After
> all, [r] and [l] are neighbors.
> >Old Saxon - speaking.Under Ariovistus or in the decades after him under other leaders. The Helvetian lands on the upper Danube had become deserted.
> >The newly upper layer (says archaeology) of Bastarnae (says I)
> >spread as a homogenous layer (says archaeology) over several
> >similar but related cultures (says archaeology) in the
> >Przeworsk culture (ie. today's Poland) and the Jastorf
> >culture (today's Northern Germany). Thus also between the
> >Weser and the Elbe.
> Then how did the next generations gotten into Rhineland-
> Palatinate, Hesse, Alsatia, Baden, WÃ¼rttemberg, Bavaria,
> Switzerland? Under the "tag" of the Frankish kings?
> >Langobards would have originally spoken Proto Low GermanAfter they moved south.
> >because of their origin.
> Linguistically they were rather Suebians.
> >A more fascinating possibility is that a basic ChristianPoland had been cleared of Germanic-speakers (except Jews, I think, and a few splinter groups) by that time.
> >vocabulary arrived with a second wave of immigrants from
> >Przeworsk in the first centuries CE.
> But the main impediment is the fact that Christian culture
> came into those lands from the West (Gallia & Irish & Anglo-
> Saxon missionaries) and the South (inter alia via Gothic:
> experts say that in Bavaria (it is meant the historic Bavaria, i.e.
> incl. Noricum up to the Lake Balaton) some terminology was
> conveyed by Gothic). Whereas regions to the east, into Poland
> stayed pagan for a longer time. (Most of the Slavic areas had
> to wait for Cyrill and Method brethren's mission.)
>Faute de mieux.
> >I think I recall that. But the Goths weren't particularly active
> >in Southern Germany AFAIK?
> It seems quite the contrary - at least according to the abridged
> "Atlas der Deutschen Sprache"; see above.
> BTW, the Germanic populations taxonomy in this book says:Getting the Bastarnae involved is my idea.
> Alemanians, Bavarians, Langobards continuated the "Elbgermanen"
> lineage (and these the Irmions). The Franks, Hesses etc. the
> "Weser-Rheingermanen" (IstvÃ¤onen), with the question-mark addition
> that Franks may also have had "Nordseegermanen" ancestry, along
> with the Saxons. So: Elbe, Rhein & Weser (apud Fr. Maurer, you
> also have quoted on various occasions).
> Elbgermanen (according to FM): Semnonen, Hermunduren (ThÃ¼ringer),
> Langobarden, Markomannen, Quaden, Baiern, Alemannen ("die Sprache
> der letzteren seit dem 8. Jahrhundert Ã¼berliefert").
> Your thesis is akin to Theo Frings's one: <<betont die gotisch-
> elbgerm. (= hochdeutschen) und nordsee-germ.-weser-rheingerm.
> Beziehungen. Er bringt die Dreiteilung des Tacitus (in der
> "Germania") in die KultbÃ¼nde der IngvÃ¤onen, IstvÃ¤onen und Irmionen
> mit der sprachlichen Dreiteilung des Westgerm. zusammen (Nordsee-,
> Weser-Rhein-, Elbgermanen) und sieht diese auch in der heutigen
> Mundartgliederung im KÃ¼stendeutsch (NiederlÃ¤ndisch), Binnendeutsch
> (Niederdeutsch) und Alpendeutsch, SÃ¼ddeutsch (Hochdeutsch) wieder.
> Die Entstehung der gotisch-hochdt. Gemeinsamkeiten verlegt er in
> eine Zeit frÃ¼her Nachbarschaft im Ostseeraum, in die Mitte des 1.
> Jahrtausends.>> (On Bastarnians, nothing.)
> >>Pflicht, Pfriem).Danish 'syl' [sÃ¼?l]. 'pren' is used of archaeological finds.
> >True. Probably reflecting the low importance of the speakers of
> >NWBlock et sim.
> BTW, "Pfriem": a curiosity is the fact that Latin subula has
> German derivates spread all over Middle and Northern Germany
> (into Mecklenburg-Pommern) & 2/3 of Switzerland: Seila, Saul,
> Suggel, SÃ¼hl, Suhl, SÃ¼gel, whereas all Gallia (except Bretagne),
> Northern Italy and Spain + Catalunya (except Portugal and Galicia),
> Corsica, Sicily and part of Reggio borrowed the germanic alansa
> as: alÃªne, leseno, lezna, alena, alesna, lÃ©sina. (Portugal,
> Galicia, Sardinia, Southern Italy and Romania preserved subula
> as: sovela, solla, sula, suglia and sula.)
>I mention them when they are relevant, or when I'm asked.
> >I didn't claim that the Charudes had any influence on the
> >development of Oberdeutsch or Yiddish.
> Then don't mention them so often, if they are irrelevant in
> this discussion.
> >No, that is true. The arguments I use to support the proposal of aThe Bastarnae spoke Bastanian. If the Bastarnae are the ancestors of those social and geographical groups in Germany which speak High German, then Bastarnian is the ancestor of High German. In order to show that the Bastarnae spoke Proto High German I thus have to show that the ancestors of the social and geographical groups in Germany which speak High German were the Bastarnae. That I will have to do with archaeological and historical evidence alone.
> >Bastarnian origin of High German speaking upper layer in Germany
> >are archaeological and historical, necessarily, since I only know
> >three measly words of Bastarnian (if that many).
> How can some archeological artefacts prove what kind of
> Germanic dialect Bastarnae spoke?!
> >A competitor to the title of the tribe who brought GermannessBut their old territory was in the Low German speaking area, so we need an explanation why the Frankish upper layer spoke a High German language then. That won't fly.
> >to the Germans would have to fulfill the requirement of showing
> >a documented Germany-wide historically or archaeologically
> >attested dispersal. Bastarnae fulfill that criterion. No
> >other German tribe does, AFAIK. If you know of any, I'd like
> >to hear about it.
> Franks. They really were unifiers and "nation builders". But
> 5-6 centuries later.
> In Teutoburger Wald battle against Varus's army, there were theAccording to Kuhn, the area was being Germanized at the time, which means the Cherusci and Arminius weren't even German.
> Cherusci and Arminius who played a the role of coordinators, but
> Bastarnae aren't mentioned, AFAIK.
> >Look up 'FÃ¼rstengrÃ¤ber'. That's the layer I'm talking about.I never said that.
> >Their graves are full of Roman provincial stuff.
> I'm even ready to accept a thesis of yours stating "there were
> no Franks actually, the so-called Franks were Bastarnians".
> But show us how you can know - with the help of artefacts showingAs I said, in later times, the language of the upper layer in later times is High German, also in nominally Low German areas. The people of the suddenly appearing FÃ¼rstengrÃ¤ber in old Germania were the upper layer of that society. Provided there was no linguistic upheaval in the meantime, the latter are the ancestors of the former and would have spoken a language which was the ancestor of High German. Furthermore, the upper layer with their FÃ¼rstengrÃ¤ber appears in Germania exactly at a time when the Bastarnian 'state' collapses, and are archaeologically similar.
> a high *social* status - that Bastarnians were the "inventors"
> of Hochdeutsch. The whole community dealing with "Germanistik"
> has said other Germanic populations were in charge of "Hoch-
> > > The fact that Ariovist + auxiliaryThe Vangiones, Triboci and Nemetes were part of Ariovistus' army, according to Caesar. Get your facts straight.
> > > Charudes were there, in the region of the upper Rhine, means...
> > > nothing.
> >I am not so sure. The Vangiones, Triboci and Nemetes sayed in
> >Alsace. The Sueui stayed in Swabia.
> But these were not = Charudes. So, we don't care.
> >Before, north of theNo.
> Yes, but Hochdeutsch is a German dialects group chiefly
> extant south of the Limes.
> Therefore, the essential thingI can't.
> is to know which Germanic tribes passed the limes and
> settled south of it and from which regions did they come.
> Since "Germanistik" tells me there were other populations
> who were "in charge" of hochdeutschization, whereas Bastarnae
> were marginal until they were never mentioned again. So, if
> they changed "tags", you're to show me some hints/proof etc.
> (Show me that chieftains of South-Germans had Bastarnian
> >No, wrong.Wrong time period. There were no Romans in those parts in the 1st century BCE.
> What is wrong? That in the area of Augusta Vindelicorum
> there were no Vindelici?
> >Okay, you would like me to discuss the Bastarnae and theirI decide what is the main part of my topic.
> >*linguistic* impact in the southern part of the future
> >"Holy Roman Empire of German Nation".
> It is the main point of *your* topic!
> It is you who hasYes.
> suggested this: Bastarnae as the carriers of the Proto-
> Hochdeutsch, with social and linguistic influence even
> in the southern regions of the German-speaking populations,
> where Hochdeutsch developed (OHG, MHG, NHG) (roughly
> between Frankfurt and South-Tyrol).
> >I'd have to claim that Southern Germany was repopulated fromThis is where Ariovistus' troops came from
> >Norther Germany.
> And that's correct, to a great extent. (Even if Bavarians came
> from Bohemia, it's quite the same direction.)
> >Between what and what?
> Between Bastarnae and other groups (from their area and from
> other areas). Methinks, you can do only based on written
> data (in Latin) and on distinctive artefacts revealed by
> archeology (if there are such objects unearthed).
> >I couldn't.I'm not talking about Franks being Bastarnians, actually I think their upper layer has another provenance, namely from Pannonia (according to their own chroniclers). As for how I can show that Bastarnae were the Verhochdeutschers, see above.
> If you can't, then how can you postulate Bastarnians's
> influence upon those who in the 4th-5th-6th-7th centuries
> colonized South Germany and kept their dialects developing
> as a High German idiom? (Especially since in the relevant
> centuries no contemporary source talks of Bastarnians, but
> of various other Germanic populations, among which the
> most important were the Franks. If you could prove that
> Franks, at least the dynasty and the kernel of power, were
> actually Bastarnians, then I'd exclaim "aha!")
> >But if I have to do it, here it is: According to the officialIt is standard, AFAIK. If anyone else knows different, please tell.
> >version of history, Romans did not have any contact with Germani
> >before Caesar's dealing with Ariovistus (apart from the Cimbri and
> Is this assertion correct?
> >There were no Germani in Southern Germani before Ariovistus.Yes, you are. No, it didn't.
> Didn't have the Roman Empire borders in the region of the
> lower Rhine in those years? (I'm lazy to look for adequate
> maps. :))
> >No, but I think I have an case that they showed up themselves,Into all groups. The were the nobility everywhere in Germany. A conquering people became a class.
> >bringing the language with them.
> OK, but where the heck did they stay then? Nobody mentions
> them in the centuries that are relevant for the Germanization
> of Southern Germany, Switzerland and Noricum. So they must
> have been assimilated into other groups. But which one(s)?
> And if we take some, how do we know? Based on what sources
> or signs?
> >The Bastarnae had ceased to be an independent people with aAll of them. Archaeology tells us the new upper class spread out as a homogenous layer over heterogenous populations.
> >separate state (whatever that meant to them) and were now just
> >a political caste in Germania.
> But where? Within the frame of which populations? Among
> the Franks? The Alamanians? Suebians? Bavarians? Thuringians?
> >Besides, given the later attested connotations of the word,As I'm saying: all of them! The whole German nobility. The upper layer of every single German people. They are the essential Germans, so to speak. They determine the ideology of the whole country. Without them, no Germany. They are the ones that makes Germany different from other supposedly Germanic countries, the admixture that makes Germans foreign to other supposedly Germanic nations. They are the reason Kaiser Wilhelm wasn't accepted there. And when Germans realized that they thought: what is that element in us that makes our supposed family shun us? And then they made some very bad decisions ...
> >I don't think 'Bastarna' was something you called a Bastarna
> >to his face; cf Pliny: 'The Peucini, however, who are sometimes
> >called Bastarnae, ...'; they probably preferred to be named
> >by their subtribe. I mean, that would be like calling a
> >modern-day German a bastard, and who does that?
> Exactly! So much the more: which other Germanic name of a
> major group kommt in Frage? (Now really!) Do you have any
> assumption? (If they were a caste, I'd be tempted to
> automatically think of the Franks. But they were Rhein-Weser-
> Germanic ones, and not an Elbe or Vistula group. So, Bastarnae
> would have had to stay for a while in the West.)
> >I don't assert stuff, I propose it. Important methodologicalOh they do. They are very fleshy.
> Yes, you propose, but the proposal has to have some fleshy
> substanc, hasn't it?
> >No, I think Ariovistus and Harigasti was the same person (the kingAriovistus was Germanic. Burebista attacked the Germani.
> >Voccio connection). Ariovistus was Germanic. Burebista attacked the
> But look how close they are phonetically: Ariovist, Arigast,
> Boerebist (this one is a variant of Burebista; what if
> "*Boii-Erebist", "*Boii-Eregist"? :)).
> >We were discussing whether 'nationalism' which you equated withYou neglect or ignore or didn't pay attention to the fact Dacia was an especially heavily exploited area of slave procurement in the 70's BCE, as shown by the articles I referred you to.
> >the intent of a people to collectively try to avoid enslavement,
> >claiming such a notion did not exist before the 19th century,
> >and I showed you it did.
> To avoid enslavement is one thing, but to upkeep and maintain
> slavery and import-export of slaves by the same nation is
> another thing. You neglect or ignore or didn't pay attention
> to the fact that I more than one time said: selling and buying
> of slaves (with the same ethnic origin) was an usual occurrence
> in ancient Europe (prior to the Christian kingdoms era).
> >Dependent for their livelihood like the Imbangala and NyamweziI don't know. Didn't the Imbangala and Nyamwezi have that?
> >in Africa.
> That would imply Dacians had nothing else, no agriculture,
> no trades, no gold, no silver, no wood, no activities of
> simple gatherers and hunters. :)
> >>In what territory?Because the Romans were active south of the Danube.
> >North of the lower Danube
> Why only north of it? Dacians also lived in Moesia inferior,
> Moesia superior, Dacia ripensis, Dacia mediterranea, Dardania
> and some areas between them and Pannonia+Illyricum. (Most of
> Serbia was Dacia. The North strip of Bulgaria, up to the
> Haemus and Rhodopi ranges were Dacia. Dacia was not limited
> to some regional kingdoms. And, by and large, Dacia was
> ethnically nothing else than another... Thracia. And Thracia
> was not only the smaller province called Thracia by the Greek.)
> >>Based on what written sources?That's not what those sources say. They say that Dacia was an especially heavily exploited area of slave procurement in the 70's BCE.
> >As I said:
> >and ff.
> Yeah, slavery was a normal thing, an economic dimension.
> Something which could have benn "tapped" in peace times
> based on economic exchanges. So, not only in wars.
> >The Romans paid them.But those opportunities were closed in the 70's BCE.
> OK. But "help" didn't fit too well in this description.
> Dacians were also present in that sort of "market", and
> Romans had many other partners in the same market (that
> also included Northern Africa & the Middle East).
> >No, see the reference I gave.So what are you objecting to?
> Then cite such references whenever you refer to this
> topic, and not that habit in theater comedies with
> the comic characters Geta and Daos. :)
> >No, the Geta and Daos names show that Dacia through
> >centuries was a preferred slave procurement area
> I know.
> >I believe you might be on to something.True. Not also Russian DatÄanin. *daÄ- and no -n-.
> Oh, yeah, of course: medieval texts always referred to Danes
> as "Dacians", and Denmark as "Dacia". Even in Britain in
> Alfred the Great's time. (Until roughly the 17th century,
> So you're kind of an ... ancestor of today's Romanians? :)Erh. They must have settled on SjÃ¦lland. I think.
> >The Albanians come from a coast-free area, according to theI think Brian is happy the way he is.
> >vocabulary of Albanian.
> Yep. (Hopefully, KonuÅ¡eviÄ won't read this. :))
> >Brian finds it difficult to entertain more than one idea at
> >the same time.
> Multitasking is not always a good thing. :)
>Nettozahler. We got oil.
> >We ran a surplus until last year, I believe.
> Is Denmark a "Nettozahler" or a "Nettokassierer"? :)
>Hm. Maybe I should buy a piano?Or a moog synthesizer.